>>39
Actually, I've been every bit serious. Well, now I regret giving SQL nine ■ because it's really ten.
BTW, I hate writing assembly. It's the closest to a Turing tarpit I've ever been. I did that when I was 15, and was a kid worried about OMG SPEED and OMG OPTIMIZED and OMG ITS LIKE BARE METAL MAN and hacked MS-DOS BBS-like intros in my slow 386. I didn't know what specifying and dealing with processes was really about, didn't have any real data processing to accomplish, and didn't have anything better to do than to waste hours writing what I could accomplish with a single paragraph or even line of Python. In retrospective, assembly was boring and pathetic, and required the abstraction capabilities of a goat, which is as far away from intellectual illumination as possible within programming.
Assembly is not worth the pain except for performance-critical firmware, kernel cores and drivers and just maybe stock exchange software or UI toolkits. In most cases, portable assembly ("C") would suffice and a good compiler would do a better job pairing instructions for multi-pipeline processors and optimizing jumps and caches than a human anyways, so what's the big idea? You seem to be amazed by how you can write nearly machine code — who gives a damn about placing bricks when you can design entire castles?